Human Rights: Saudi Arabia

Debate between Baroness Clark of Kilwinning and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 24th June 2014 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on bringing that matter to the Chamber for our consideration. In relation to the case of the Saudi Arabian princesses, has she been able to obtain opinions from all parties in the House? What have other parties done to help the campaign that she has spearheaded?

[Katy Clark]

The Opposition spokesperson, my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas), is here, and I expect that he will outline the position of the official Opposition. I say to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who has been extremely helpful in this case—he has attended a meeting with the mother, as well as signing an early-day motion and letters to representatives—that a number of Members from all political parties have been extremely supportive. I could not extend such a description to Government spokespeople, however. I believe that there is a great deal of sympathy in all parts of the House, but unfortunately those who hold the power have not indicated that they share such a view.

Saudi Arabia was Britain’s biggest arms market last year. The Committees on Arms Export Controls report from 2013—the most recent available to the House—states that the value of arms exports licences amounted to more than £1.8 billion. That includes weapons that are likely to be used for internal repression, such as tear gas and other irritant ammunition, components of water cannon and CS hand grenades. The Prime Minister has visited Saudi Arabia several times, and the Saudi Government has had extensive contact with the UK Government. The Prime Minister has defended arms sales to the region, saying that they are “entirely legitimate”. The UK Government deny that the commercial relationship between the kingdom and the UK prevents the UK Government from speaking openly about the problems. Saudi Arabia clearly has a pivotal role in the region, but that is no excuse for the Government’s failure to take up human rights cases; indeed, that undermines our position in relation to other matters. The Government take up human rights cases in other countries, but they are reluctant to do so with Saudi Arabia.

I call on the Minister, in summing up, to outline in detail the Government’s position on human rights in Saudi Arabia, the action that the Government have taken on the case of the Saudi princesses, and the action that they have taken regarding the other human rights abuses that I have mentioned. Given what is happening in the world, the question of human rights in Saudi Arabia is important and requires a great deal more scrutiny. I look forward to hearing contributions from all parts of the House.

Royal Mail

Debate between Baroness Clark of Kilwinning and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 25th June 2013 Westminster Hall

[Katy Clark]

I hope to explore some of those issues in today’s debate. The fear is that the current regime, which was set up under the 2011 Act, will not give the kind of security that many of us feel is required.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Lady for being so gracious in giving way and congratulate her on securing this debate. The fact that so many Members are here indicates the interest in the matter across the whole United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Is she aware that the annual profit of Royal Mail has risen by up to 60% in the past year, which shows that we now have a more viable and stable business? Does she also think that, perhaps for older people in rural areas, the post office represents more than just a place to go to buy their postage stamps and that the impact on them will be greater than on anyone else in the population?

[Katy Clark]

The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point, which I hope to explore in my speech. The point that I was making 18 months ago when I previously secured a debate on this issue was that no other country in the world has attempted to do what the Government are doing here, which is to separate the mail service from the post office network. At that time, a great deal of the concern over the proposed privatisation related to the already vulnerable post office network. At the time, there were many warm words from the Government about how post offices would not suffer as they would become the front of house for the Government. Indeed, the Government said in that debate that they were looking at a range of both national and local government services that post offices could provide. They said that post offices could act as the front line for users in local communities.

One of the major reasons why the National Federation of SubPostmasters is now saying that there should be an immediate delay in the privatisation plans is that the Government have failed to deliver on that promise. Its concern is that post offices remain highly dependent on Royal Mail transactions. It says that both post offices and a stand-alone Post Office Ltd would have a highly uncertain future should privatisation of Royal Mail go ahead.

Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme

Debate between Baroness Clark of Kilwinning and Jim Shannon

Wednesday 7th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Katy Clark]

I would suggest introducing progressive taxation, but perhaps we can have that debate on another occasion. We have this valuable opportunity to debate the changes that the Government have been trying to sneak through, and I will not be pushed in another direction, because we need proper scrutiny.

A number of CICB cases have been dealt with recently, which has led to additional funds being paid out, as the former Minister, the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr Blunt), is well aware. The reason for that is partly the policy under the criminal injuries compensation scheme to delay payment in many types of cases, particularly those relating to children, such as shaken-baby cases, and other cases in which people have suffered injury. The authority’s policy is to wait and see how the person recovers and what the long-term implications of the damage are.

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Lady touches on the issue of children. Is she aware that children whose lives have been wrecked as a consequence of illicit drug taking and alcohol abuse by their mothers during pregnancy will not be able to claim? Is there not something seriously wrong there?

[Katy Clark]

The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point. At the moment, such children are entitled to compensation, but they will not be so under the new scheme. Most people who look at the new rules will feel that again the Government are targeting the most vulnerable in order to make savings in the Justice budget, but that is definitely not the place where we should be looking for savings.

I was interested to hear what the former Minister had to say. Some of his arguments today were not put before either Committee. In the last Committee, on 1 November, Labour Members had the opportunity for the first time to elicit some detail about the £500,000 hardship fund that the Government have announced. Unlike my right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) on the Front Bench, I have not seen the letter sent to Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members about the fund. In reality, of course, it is a meagre fund, and, from what the Minister said in Committee, I understood that it would be focused on those who had suffered loss of earnings.

The Minister needs to outline in detail what the criteria will be for applying to that fund. Government Members seem to have suggested today that victims of dog attacks, for example, might be entitled to make an application. That information was not put before the Committee when we discussed the matter previously, yet the facts today are exactly the same as they were last Thursday. Almost half of those who currently get compensation under the scheme will no longer be entitled to it. Several hon. Members have mentioned a range of injuries that will no longer entitle someone to compensation.

The Minister’s response was that if an injury led to long-term damage, the individual concerned could qualify under a different tariff, but if they were entitled under a different tariff—the higher tariff—that is how the compensation would have been claimed in the first instance. It was a spurious point, made simply to provide some explanation of why half of those currently eligible will no longer receive any compensation. For example, those suffering from what are called needle stick injuries—that is, where somebody is stabbed—which might be sustained during their employment if they work in a hospital, normally receive the lowest amount of compensation, but they will now no longer be entitled to any. Indeed, a number of categories have simply been taken out of compensation. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned children who have suffered as a result of their parents’ alcohol or drug abuse, particularly by the mother. They will no longer be entitled to compensation, but in the original consultation only those who had suffered from foetal alcohol problems were affected. There has been no consultation whatever on drug abuse, which is also part of the scheme.

If Government Members decide to go ahead with the proposals, they will live to regret it. As constituents go to see them with the practical problems associated with the changes, they will come to believe that mistakes have been made. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) mentioned that applicants would now have to pay £50 for their medical notes, and they will also have to obtain them physically. That will be a major problem for many people who want to claim from the scheme. Those of us who have been involved with such matters know that obtaining medical reports, hospital records and so on is not the most straightforward thing to do. Individuals will face practical difficulties in obtaining those records, particularly when they are at their most vulnerable.

The Minister has said that the new reporting requirements will have no impact on those claiming as a result of sexual abuse, particularly historic abuse. However, all the legal advice on the new definition and the more restricted requirement of reporting to the police suggests that this will be a major problem. The Minister needs to come back with more detail on that if she is seriously contending that the changes will make no difference.

Let me draw to a conclusion, because many others want to contribute. I urge Government Members to look into these changes in detail, because the more we have done so, the more concerns many of us have had.

Whistleblowing

Debate between Baroness Clark of Kilwinning and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 11th September 2012 Westminster Hall

[Katy Clark]

I will address the position in the NHS later in my speech, but the hon. Gentleman is right that whistleblowing legislation has been important, particularly in the NHS. My concern, as I will illustrate, is that some cases will be more difficult to bring if the proposals are enacted, even though many people may still be able to rely on the legislation.

Many who campaigned for the legislation in the early days, and organisations such as the Trades Union Congress that are directly involved in litigating on behalf of whistleblowers, are concerned that the Government’s proposals will water down the protections afforded to whistleblowers and will make it more difficult for those who should be able to rely on the legislation’s protection.

As the hon. Gentleman may know, much of the case law that has developed since the original Act has made it more difficult for people to rely on the whistleblowing legislation. My contention is that the Government’s proposals will be a further step in the wrong direction. When the whistleblowing legislation was introduced, it was intended to be accessible, clear and predictable with as much certainty as possible for those accessing the justice system. The Government’s proposals, by placing on the individual the burden of deciding whether a disclosure is in the public interest, will undermine those principles.

I do not suggest that there is no need to consider the law on whistleblowing. There has been no post-legislative scrutiny of the 1998 Act, and after a decade many issues have been raised that need to be addressed. I contend that the Government’s proposals will make the position more difficult.

Over the years, several cases have shown that the current legislation does not protect those who suffer detriment or reprisal at the hands of co-workers. There is also confusion about disclosure of information and allegations. There is no protection for people who are wrongly identified as whistleblowers, and there is no protection at the pre-employment stage, which needs to be rectified to avoid issues such as blacklisting. Blacklisting, of course, is a big issue for many trade unionists in this country.

The Government have no proposals to address those problems. Particularly in the health sector, recent case law and media stories have highlighted the difficulties that general practitioners, students, nurses, doctors, volunteers, non-executive directors and prospective job applicants have in relying on the legislation. Therefore, the definition of “worker” needs to be widened to include those groups, as well as priests, foster carers and no doubt many others.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this Westminster Hall debate.

I have been involved in a case over the past two years on behalf of one of my constituents who is a whistleblower. Through my engagement with him and the bodies that are supposed to give protection, I have noticed that, when it comes to big business, the whistleblower is often pushed to the side. The Government are considering legislative changes, so does the hon. Lady feel that it is necessary for the Government to put in place support both to ensure that whistleblowers can provide information and to protect the general public? All this is about protecting the general public in big business, health and wherever else.

[Katy Clark]

Many Members will have been involved as constituency MPs in trying to assist constituents who are whistleblowers or are thinking about whistleblowing.

A recent YouGov survey showed that only 26% of the work force are aware of the legislation. In many parts of society, there is little awareness that whistleblowing is legitimate and lawful in certain circumstances, as set out in the legislation.

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Lady will be aware, as many people both inside and outside this Chamber are aware, that whistleblowing often has a detrimental effect on a whistleblower’s livelihood and job. Many of the people I have spoken to, both constituents and others, have told me that they have lost their job and are fighting to regain it, the cost implication of which means, in many cases, that they have no money left.

[Katy Clark]

The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point that shows the need for whistleblowing legislation and for strengthening existing legislation.

Dame Janet Smith in the Shipman inquiry stated that good faith is a barrier to whistleblowers, which is borne out by recent reports from the Mid Staffordshire inquiry, which may be reporting in October, and the Leveson inquiry. The Government say they are introducing a public interest test to overcome a legal loophole whereby individuals are able to raise concerns about their own personal employment contracts. The loophole arose as the result of the case of Parkins v. Sodexho. The Government propose to address it with a public interest disclosure test that will have implications far beyond the type demonstrated in that case.

Indeed, it is far from clear that the proposed new wording would have helped in the Parkins case. It is clear, however, that the Government’s proposals will mean that all applicants will have to meet the additional hurdle of a public interest test that does not apply currently. That hurdle may discourage some from making disclosures that are in the public interest. We ask the Minister to address that in her response.

We also ask the Minister to address the issue of gagging clauses. The provisions of the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 ensure that no one can be prevented from making a public disclosure and that any attempt to prevent it, for example in a compromise agreement or settlement agreement, is void. However, gagging clauses seem to be used in the public sector, particularly in the national health service, to prevent individuals from talking about policy concerns. She may be aware of the recent press coverage surrounding the former chief executive of United Lincolnshire Hospitals, where there was said to be a super-gag on discussing patient safety, along with a severance deal that I am told was worth more than £500,000. Will she consider the suggestion that lawyers advising on settlements should be required to confirm that they have explained to their client the anti-gagging provisions in the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998?

As I have outlined, I believe that the Government need to consider the issue, but not in the piecemeal way suggested in the legislation. Organisations such as Public Concern at Work are calling for a thorough review of the operation of all aspects of the legislation, along with a full consultation involving all those with an interest, whether they come from business, trade unions or other organisations. Whistleblowing legislation needs to be strengthened, and I hope that the Minister, in her new position, is willing to take on that challenge.

In the short time available, I ask the Minister to address the following points. Given that a number of changes have been necessary as a result of the legislation’s operation, does she accept that the time is now right for a thorough review? Is she willing to proceed with that? How will the Government take into account the findings of the Mid Staffordshire and Leveson public inquiries into whistleblowing? Will the Government ensure that vicarious liability exists within the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 so that workers can rely on the legislation? How will the Government deal with the problem highlighted by Public Concern at Work and others relating to the definition of “worker in health care”? I believe that Ministers in the Department of Health are very aware of those concerns.

If the Government proceed with their proposals as currently drafted in the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill, will they produce guidance on what is and is not in the public interest? There are concerns that the legislation will produce a huge amount of litigation as well as a great deal of confusion for those seeking to rely on it. What will the Government do to promote the provisions of the 1998 Act, given the low level of public awareness and the fact that many cases have made it more difficult to rely on whistleblowing legislation? I appreciate that this is a complex area of law and the Minister is new to her post, but I hope that she will respond as fully as possible.